tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC November 9, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
one of the things that will happen in washington is we are going to start learning which senior members of the obama administration really only wanted to serve one term. is hillary clinton going to leave as secretary of state? is eric holder going to leave as attorney general? mr. geithner going to leave as secretary of treasury? the speculation is officially hot and heavy in washington as to who will stay on, who will leave and, of course, who will get the jobs of the people who do leave. everybody in washington is also now figuring out how they are going to work with president obama for another four years. how the politics of him earning a second term affects what he wants to do and how likely it is he is going to be able to do it. it probably was not an auspicious sign for that process when the president, right after his victory speech on tuesday night, right after he was done speak, as soon as he was done speaking, the night he wins a second term, after he gave that
speech, he got on the phone and he tried to call the republican leader in the house and the republican leader in the senate, he tried to call john boehner and mitch mcconnell but he was told they were asleep, quote after his speech, mr. obama tried to call both mr. boehner and the senate republican leader, mr. mcconnell but was told they were asleep. i realized it was late night and everything but if the president calls you and you are asleep, do you not get woken up? isn't that sort of a standing order? one of the things we can all agree on the sort of thing you get out of bed for? the presidents an on the phone, okay, i'll wake up and take the phone no matter who you are? no. john boehner and mitch mcconnell were still asleep and no woke them up. since then, they have made statements about what they see happening in this next year, indicating that maybe they also slept through the part of the night when the results of the election came in. mr. mcconnell put out a statement what's clear about
this election is that the voters have not endorsed president obama's first term. the fact that the president won the election is not an endorsement of the president? filling in a little bubble next to the man's name on a piece of paper is technically how we endorse a person in america. mr. mcconnell does not see it that way. on the political wire the romney's campaign would have could have should have transition website today. surely, this was not supposed to go live until mr. romney actually won the election. the campaign did not wait. they presumably accidentally put it up, a transition website for president-elect romney, how to apply for a job with the new romney administration. looks like because they screen shot it before they finally did take it down, looks like the romney folks had a transition motto all ready to go, a slogan, repeated slogan on the website is smaller, simpler, smarter. when republican speaker of the house john boehner gave his
first post election press conference what he thought should happen in this country given the results of the election almost like he thought he was speaking in the context of president-elect romney and smaller simpler smaller branded transition. >> by working together and creating a fairer simpler cleaner tax code, moving to fairer simpler system energized by a simpler cleaner fairer tax code -- >> simpler fairer simpler, john boehner at that press conference congratulated president obama for beating mitt romney said as a consequence of this election and to reflect the will of the country, i suggest what we do now is enact mitt romney's tax plan. he said what he wants the property to do, what he expects the property to do is cut income tax rates and pay for it by closing unspecified loopholes in the tax code. if that sounds familiar, it's because that is what mitt romney proposed, mitt romney who just lost the election after proposing that very thing, people said no. if you lose the election, you do not get to implement your ideas what the country said no to, what losing means. that's the point of a loser.
we won't get a mitt romney tax policy now because mitt romney lost the election, john boehner, while you were sleeping through the republican's phone call. this is how republicans have been handling the news of this election this week so far. this is my actual handwriting. that's how bad my handwriting is on the printout of a newspaper article i read when i first got into work today. i went back to look for the article this afternoon i realized that is what i had written in the margin of the article not paying attention to the fact i was doing it. wrote the word "ha" five times and exclamation point and star. here's why i did that without noticing it. from oklahoma republican tom cole, what does he think about mitt romney and paul ryan losing this election?
his take away is this. the paul ryan budget passed a pretty big test. we had to run around the country and defend it. the ryan budget proved itself a viable platform on which to run and be reelected. wow. just to reiterate, this is what happened on election night. how does this constitute the ryan budget passing a big test. it took a big test but it did not pass that test, two very deficit things. the lesson of this election for republicans appears to be all that stuff we ran on, it totally worked. think about what determines what the republican party does next. what determines how they fix their political problems. the question of who is going to be the new face of the republican party and how they will course correct after this disastrously bad election for them, it all depends how they assess what just went wrong and why it went so wrong. what do they think their problem is that caused the country to reject them so emphatically in 2012.
the signs how their self-assessment is going so far are not promising. wednesday, the day after the election, mr. romney had breakfast with some of his richest donors. what does he think happened in the election, why does he think he lost. he told the donors he believe hurricane sandy stunted his momentum in the final week of the campaign. karl rove wrote in this "wall street journal" yesterday president obama was lucky hurricane sandy happened because it interrupted mr. romney's momentum. this began for republicans even before election day explaining how mitt romney's loss in the election would not be a reflection on anything about mitt romney or his policies or campaign or the republican party. they were explaining that before mr. romney even lost. october 31st, campaign sources told cbs news super storm sandy stalled romney's momentum. a few days before the election, if you hadn't had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the romney campaign
to talk about the deficit. the blame the storm line has continued all through today especially with former mississippi governor haley barbour speaking on the "today" show. >> hurricane sandy saved barack obama's presidency. it broke the momentum romney had coming in the end of october. >> this is a narrative republicans are telling themselves, that the beltway media is also now starting to tell itself because they keep hearing republicans say it. it is not a theory born from reality. this is a checkable thing, emperical idea. their theory is mitt romney was on track to win this thing if it weren't for that blasted storm. this is something we can check. easy. let's start with this. we're all in agreement that the polls were correct despite all the nonsense ahead of the election how the polls seemed so wrong before the election, now that the election has happened, it has been proven and we can
all agree that the polls reflected math and not some any nefarious agenda to make conservatives feel bad. the polls were right, we can all agree. out of all the polls, let's look at the one we know now was any mathematic mathematically accurate tracking poll going on in the race, the ipsus reuters poll. did hurricane sandy blunt mr. romney's momentum. was he on track to win? here's how they were running against each other on the most accurate poll in the country on the day before the hurricane. day of the hurricane, president obama at 48, mitt romney at 47%. look at the five days after the storm hit. hey, again, president obama ahead by the exact same 1%. before hurricane sandy, president obama ahead 1 or 2 points, afterwards, ahead by 1 or 2 points.
this is the poll we know in retrospect was totally right. if we believe the polls which we all do now in america and the ipsot-reuters poll was the most accurate one in this presidential election provely there was no romney momentum going into hurricane sandy that was moved by the storm. it just didn't happen and checkable. i'm not saying this to make conservatives feel bad to welcome you out of the bubble of denial that is dangerous. i think haley barbour is a smart guy. this is not a smart idea. liberals probably shouldn't dis disabuse republicans of this. if they take out of this election that a hurricane is the only way they didn't win, democrats should be psyched about that because republicans will go campaigning next time with the same kind of candidates and same policies and planning not having a hurricane. is that their plan? no storm and we will win. i understand why a guy like karl rove would tell his donors this. i didn't waste your hundreds of millions of dollars.
they would have bought you a shiny new president definitely if it weren't for that darned storm. you definitely need to give me your hundreds of millions of dollars again because there won't be a hurricane next time. that makes sense for charltons who make their living to e ing to separate gullible conservatives from their money. is that the republicans assess many of what happened here? you did not lose because of the storm and this election was an endorsement of barack obama and did not prove the viability of the paul ryan kill medicare budget, the opposite. what the republican party does in response to this information, whether they prove capable of absorbing this information is the next great question of politics of the american right. joining us is barney frank ranking member of the financial services committee. thaw for being here. >> thank you.
>> since tuesday, john boehner has suggested what we need to do fiscally for the country and what we should expect to happen in washington is mitt romney's tax plan. >> the problem with that, i don't know what it is, there's a third question, it would be a mistake to assume mitt romney having said it a morning ago still supports it. his his public policy positions came with not good after 30 days. romney himself didn't say what it was. he said in a debate, this is incredible. we'll limit deductions. pick a number. what an extraordinary thing for a presidential candidate to say pick a number. then he said $25,000, we would limit reductions to $25,000. in our home state of massachusetts, if you buy a house, you're paying more than that in your mortgage interest the first year. $2500 is not excessive today with house prices.
that takes away any middle class deductions for homeownership and health care. we literally don't know what the romney plan is. the other thing we say when they say this is an endorsement of their prestigious, the romney plan was only about a month that plan. it was before that to reduce taxes for the rich. when we talk about who did what, when romney started to make some gains from the dismal position he was in, he did it by abandoning his positions. one other point -- i want to note you and i have this interest, i did want to ask the romney people smaller simpler smarter except the military. the biggest single area of expenditure in the federal government, smaller simpler smarter, we have to have more world war i ships. i don't know how that fits. it was simpler, not smaller and smarter. we didn't just elect a president, a senate and a house. the democrats, despite all predictions, picked up seats in
the senate, they drew more republican states. were people voting for democrats in montana and indiana and wisconsin and elsewhere because of the storm? did the people of those midwestern states say, well, you know what, obama did a good job in the storm, let's re-elect our senator. in the house, we gained house seats. unfortunately the republicans were able to gerrymander the house badly because they won the 2010 election. if we had run this house election by the same districts that existed in 2010 we'd have a democratic house now. we did very well in the democratic senate. this was a very big victory. nearly 3 million in the popular vote, the fifth time in the last six democrats have won the popular vote. as far as mitt romney's tax plan, one, we don't know what it is, he was afraid to tell us what it is because it would have
brutal effect and the public did repudiate it. >> the president has been quiet since his victory speech. the campaign today released tape of him speaking to his volunteers and know he will speak on the economy tomorrow. in that little bit we heard from the president, we heard some gesturing towards stuff he might want to get tone in his second term and might want to get started with. we're expecting something beside s economic policy. climate change, immigration, conduct of elections and reforming that process. with more democrats in the senate and with -- i think democrats picking up seats in the house, too, despite all the things you just side, what do you think is possible? >> that's a good point. one other thing you reminded me of when you mentioned climate change. the storm did help the president. the man did his job very well, much better than his republican predecessor. that's cheating. it brought on the endorsement of
mike bloomberg. one of the things the storm did was to bring climate change to the fore. to that extent, if republicans got hurt because of the storm, because of the abysmal stupid of the position denying climate change. the storm did remind people how wrong they were. i think this question. the senate i hope and president will come up with a balanced plan, substantial cuts in the military. that's one we won. romney tried to make that an issue. for the first time a president campaigned on less military spending in my memory or lifetime and successful. >> won virginia. a military state. >> secondly, you get tax increases on the very wealthy, which showed to be popular. romney ran away from cut their taxes. yeah. there'll be some domestic spending restraints. not raising the retirement age. one of the reasons i'm glad i'm not running again, when i tell people, i don't think a woman
who started waiting on tables at 18 and still carrying heavy dishes in and out of a hot kitchen when she's 66, i don't think she ought to have to work another five years. i'm not saying that just because i'm a politician, i ain't one anymore. clearly some republicans with a sense of survival who understand you have to have some revenue increases on the wealthy, military cuts and spending restraints elsewhere. the question is will any of them break with the party? what we have to say to republicans, do you now not understand what happens when you let crazy people win your primaries? i don't know if i ever showed you my bumper sticker i made up some of our friends, ourselves we think the president could do a little more in some areas. it said vote democratic, we're not perfect but they're nuts. maybe now the answer is will the dick lugars, the ones remain in the republican party, not left. mainstream conservatives say this is crazy.
we will vote for a balanced balanced -- they understand the right wing got repudiated this time and democratic position won in the senate and white house and even in the house given the gerrymander. i don't know the answer. it is possible you have mainstream republicans wit common sense and survival instinct to abate the crazies. >> it will be amazing to watch that dialogue happen. >> have enjoyed watching fox news for the first time. >> let me a brief question about your future. you said you're psyched you're not running again for your house seat. if john kerry, senator from massachusetts or duval patrick the state's governor, takes a cabinet job in this administration, would you make yourself available for the governorship or senate seat in massachusetts? >> no. it's flattering people mentioned it. the senate seat, i'm 72 years old. i don't think at 72 you commit yourself to a six year term. i hope i'll be healthy and jim keeps me healthy.
no. i want to write. i want to be involved in the debate without having to march in parades, to be honest and without having people scream what i say, you're just a politician. i'm very happy splitting my time between jim and my house in maine and do some teaching. i want to be a participant in the public debate with a little less responsibility. >> i expect to be talking to you at this table when you're 150. barney frank, thank you very much for being here. the things we learn this week, women voters have their own ideas, coming up next. the truth about mascara is... it clumps. introducing a revolutionary new mascara. clump crusher...crusher. 200% more volume. zero clumps. new clump crusher from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.
as you know, nevada ca sin sino millionaire air aire sheldon adelson spent $100 million of his own money and out of that, he elected no one. you know who else spent $100 million of her own money and nothing show for it, linda mcmahon. she was trying to get a senate seat in connecticut trying over two elections and lost both times. this time, linda mcmahon tried to make it look like she was running on the same ticket as president obama which was a very nice try but connecticut apparently knew she was not and lost by 12 points. she lost the women's vote by nearly twice that margin. lost overall by 12 but lost women by 21. linda mcmahon despite being a woman running against man had a
gender gap problem among the worst of all the republican candidates this year. boy, did republican candidates this year have a gender gap problem. look at this. florida senate race, republican connie mack lost to democrat bill nilsson by 13 points overall but 20 by women. in missouri, republican todd akin lost to claire mccaskill by 16 points and women, 22 points. tom tom smith in pennsylvania lost 18 to women. richard mour dock lost by six points overall and lost 12 points women. and in virginia, george allen, by six points overall and twice that margin among women by 12 points. in wisconsin, republican tommie thompson lost to tammy baldwin the democrat by five points and
his margin by women, admirably enormous by triple that, lost women by 15 points. massachusetts, scott brown republican incumbent lost by eight points overall and 18 points among women. the great state of huo republican josh mandel lost to sherrod brown by five points overall, his margin of defeat among women, 14 points, in montana, denny reberg lost by four points and by women, lost pie nine 9. the republican won by one point and did it no thanks to women, lost wom been in six points so women did not support the guy who won, they supported the democrat shelley berkley and arizona senate ref flake won by five points. arizona women picked the democrat picked richard carmona. governor's race in indiana, republican mike pence was elected won by four points. if you asked women, they did not pick him.
he lost the women's voice by five points. if indiana had their way, mike pence would not be the governor of that state. women chose the democrat john greg. north carolina was one of two states president obama won in '08 and didn't win this time around. mitt romney won north carolina by three points this year but if you asked north carolina women, they prefer barack obama thank you very much. romney barely won the state overall because he had big enough numbers with men to make up for it but lost among north carolina women. they did not change their preference from 2008. they voted for president obama again this year. this might have happened in other states. we only had it for 31 states,
not 50. i think due to financial reasons. we don't know what happened to the other states it's a tragedy because we mine this data for many deficit reasons and we won't ever have complete exit polling data for the country, 31 states. what is clear from the data we do have, republicans really really lost women and lost them badly. where republicans lost elections it is extraordinary poor performance with women voters. even when they're winning, the weakness with women is a major vulnerability. if they want to fix what went wrong, suspect this a place. president obama didn't win women voters because he is a lady. linda mcmahon is a lady and that did not help her either. this is not a matter of chromosome, a matter of policy. when voters in connecticut rejected linda mcmahon by twice the margin the state rejected her, it is not because she is a woman, because of policy.
not about the wrong person in a particular race not a candidate here and there making an unfortunate remark about rape. the problem republicans are having with women voters is a policy problem, a big sweeping nationwide pattern for republicans, what the republican party stands for. republicans are telling american voters a story about their vision for the country that is making women voters say no. making women voters vote for whoever is not the republican no matter who it is. it is consistent across the country. how will republicans fix that problem? it will not get better, unless the republicans in the swing states can figure out how to reverse women suffrage, this is not going to get better. in america, women consistently
vote in higher numbers than men do. that is as much a problem for the republican party as the wholesale rejection of their party by african-americans and latinos. if the average voter in america is female, that is true, more women are voting than men in every election, the republican party has to figure out how to stop repulsing that average american voter as much as they evidently repulse women now. running republican women candidates is not going to solve this problem. ask linda mcmahon. this is a policy problem. how are you guys going to fix that?
you can deliver a presidency that results in the most misguided form of two generations and one that results in a financial crisis almost as bad as the "great depression" and become a two word metaphor meaning machiavellian and dis dishonest to half the country. that is all okay with the people who finance republican politics and politicians. if you blow a couple hundred million dollars of their own
ballots to count in arizona, more even than they thought they had when they started reckoning with this mess yesterday. in mira cope pa county in arizona basically phoenix, more than 30,000 not counted tonight. in pima, tucson, more than 50,000. the real problem is the provisional ballots you have to use when there's a hiccup with your registration. vote now and go back later and try to prove your provisional ballot shouldn't count, a crazy system. more than half of latino neighborhoods got pushed into using this ballot. that means arizona still has a lot of provisional ballots still left to count. in greater phoenix alone, 115,000 provisional ballots waiting to be counted. in tucson, more than 25,000. still tonight. counting these special ballots can take as many as 45 minutes apiece for 172,000 ballots. that's really bad math.
45 minutes, 172,000. that will take forever unless you throw a large portion of them out which is what happened in 2008 in pima county, arizona. the aclu named pima county the worst place in the nation for disenfranchising voters because they decided in 2008 they would throw out nearly 1 in 5 provisional ballots, not count them. that makes everything go faster. people are marching in the streets of arizona over this, this year. look at that. protesters now stationed at the maricopa elections station and will stay there until the election stops whenever that is. there are enough votes to swing fwabby gifford's old seat and conceivably that ann kirkpatrick is projected to win and sinema and it is nowhere near decided
and nobody knows when it will be. they're also still counting ballots in florida. they have until saturday to report results to the secretary of state and have even longer to figure out what in the name of ponce de leon went so terribly wrong in florida this year. people ended up standing in line eight hours to cast a ballot. isn't there something wrong with that? official explanations range from long ball lots that caused jams at the scanners, some precincts too big and some didn't have enough scanners and some power outages. my favorite explanation is in broward county where the election supervisor tells the "miami herald" all of us know when voters are interested in candidates and issues, we are going to have long lines. so the reason things went so wrong is because people wanted to vote?
we are not prepared for that. that was the november surprise in florida that screwed up florida's election so badly. turns out people wanted to vote. nobody saw that coming. they were not prepared. in pinellas county, florida, robocalls were telling people they had until wednesday to vote. they're still arguing how it happened. at first the elections chief blamed the robo call company. no, it's not their fault. somebody in the pinellas elections office colled ntrolled it and today the elections office said they did not realize they were going out and did not want them going out telling them they could vote after election day.
it does not help that the officials are partisan with a d or r after their name. the pinellas clerk is a political actor in a political calderon. if those robocalls were sent out by mistake, that is a really serious mistake. if it's not a mistake, that happened on purpose, that is a scandal. in either case, maybe it needs fixing. today, a former mayor of tampa said she was ready to work on reform in florida, her name is pam iorio, considered a possible candidate for governor in 2014 and said she will convene a nonpartisan task force to propose resolutions. things like limiting the length of the ballot and expanding early voting republicans cut last year. she says about undertaking reform, think the deposit should do it. if he doesn't, i'm going to do it. that's a start.
our nation has problems running elections for complicated reasons. some of that is that it's partisan election administration, why you see republicans cutting early voting in swing states. some of our problems are just problems. we don't have qualified professionals running these things or antiquated machines that break down or fancy new ones that break down and nobody knows how to fix them. a tangled mess. after this debacle of an election isn't this a good time to try to untangle this and try to start working on this. joining us is the senior fellow of the brookings institution and author of "our divided political heart." freight to great to see you. >> great to see you. i'm really glad you're on this and hope you stay on this. >> the thing that has emerged i didn't expect since the election is a little bit of lessening of the partisan discussion around this and heightening of the technocratic discussion of this. i think we might be getting close tor a bipartisan consensus it shouldn't take you eight or nine hours to vote in this country and it ought to be fixed. do i have rose colored glasses on or are you seeing it? >> i think you're seeing a little bit of it. the whole election administration has been politicized to a degree it probably hasn't been since way back in the days of machines when cheating used to be where
you put a rubber band on the lever and pull it down so it doesn't register the vote. that was old-fashioned fraud. now you have it systemic by trying to keep people from voting. i was thinking of that romney slogan you cited at the beginning, smaller, simpler, smarter, something like that, this is an area all the conservatives slocans and even legitimate complaints come into play. they say, you don't need multiple levels of administration. look what happened in huo.
you -- in ohio, you had guys that want to make it easy for people to vote early, the secretary of state says, no, you can't do that. excessive regulation that costs people unnecessary money. that's what voter id laws do. why would you want that? or making people's dealings with government more difficult? that's what the long lines do. there are all kinds of traditional conservative reasons to streamline this system. you'd like to think after this brief, we hope, period, of passing all these crazy laws to limit voting, republicans could go back to their own tradition. these are the guys who fought for the voting rights bill? why would they want to walk away from that tradition? >> is there a sense of embarrassment on the right about the voter id stuff, getting rid of early voting stuff, is there a sense of embarrassment this is a plainly partisan thing and maybe unseemly for the party going forward. i don't ask that to get a definite no, i don't think republicans are so craven
they're incapable of shame and i have to look at rick scott getting rid of early voting and the eight hour lines and think it's not a kosher way to play this game. >> follow you go in the right direction, i was going to give you a cynical no. i don't see a lot of shame. when you see the effect of it. there are principal conservatives out there who have to look at this and say, this isn't the right thing to do. when you heard that mayor talk about a task force. commissions are often a dodge. this might be a case you could pull together republicans and democrats no matter how you slice it, what's going on in arizona, the long lines, this doesn't work. the federal government does have the power to do something.
i'd like to see -- they passed the motor voter law, the help america vote act and help for the local election administration so you don't throw it all on localities where you have two weeks of guaranteed early voting everywhere in the country. why should you have more rights to vote in one state than another where you might beef up the number of people at the polls on election day and not always easy to hire people. make sure the machinery works. i even have a way to pay for this. the supreme court says we have to live with superpacks. let's tax the superpacks to pay for an election system. >> that is a great idea to try a transactional tax for every donation used for an ad and say some of that will go into the administration of elections. i love that idea! >> e.j., thank you very much. >> thank you so much. i have to say, after elections, i get all civically tingling, you know, you get my civic geek thing on. i feel like elections administration is one of those things we talked about as a partisan standoff for so long. i believe this kind of thing is
possible. i believe fair-minded people on both sides of the aisle believe elections should not be administered in a partisan fashion. that is an american viewpoint, not left or right viewpoint. there actually is way more middle ground than we've been willing to concede before. i think progress could happen. i know, call me naive. i think it could happen. we'll be right back. there actually is way more middle ground than we've been willing to concede before. i think progress could happen. i know, call me naive. i think it could happen. we'll be right back.
it is a long way, every single last way from the 2010 elections to what happened two nights ago in america. 2010 was an opportunity for republicans to use every cinnamon for sin cinnamon democratic posterior regions. yes, the republicans gained in the senate and the biggest practical effect of the 2010 elections was in the states. republicans taking control of the legislateures. states went deep red in their state houses and legislateures and the result was conservative law making in those states. ultimately the states were where republicans took over governing in et most the most measurerable way.
it is becoming clear that democrats bounce back in the places that they behave badly. in new hampshire, voters flipped the new hampshire house from republican control to democratic control. the same with the state house. the swing state of colorado. it didn't back barack obama for president. they gave democrats control of the house. it now looks that the democrats are going to control the new york state senate. it is not a done deal yet, but that is how it looks. in maine voters returned both the house and state senate to the democrats. how psyched is republican governor paul lepaige that he was not on that ballot? and another that would have required voters to show id in feature elections. voters in florida also put an end to the republican party's super majority in the state legislature. they are no longer impervious to the legislature.
the same goes for the house and arizona. you will remember they got their margin cut deeply. in texas. voters in florida also put an end to the republican party's super majority in the state legislature. they are no longer impervious to the legislature. the same goes for the house and arizona. you will remember they got their
margin cut deeply. in texas. democrats gained their own super majorities in both chambers ain california and illinois. in the state of carolina, in the state of north carolina they gained a republican super majority in the house and senate. in georgia, they appear unindependent away from having one in the senate. with might winning 24 states on wednesday, no one expected the president's coattails to turn blue. republican gains in the deep, red south is kind of like running up the score. down the ballot has less to do with coat tails than with parka than with hoods.
24 hours in political history. starting with the polls where democrats were the winners gaining control of the house of representatives the u.s. senate is a different story. they need the six. they have gained five seats that one race in virginia is still undecided. >> democrats ended up getting six. they one that seat and got the majority in the senate. making sure that didn't happen was his job in 2006. you remember what was going on around that time was the outing of a cia officer. he was hip deep in the scandal and nearly indied with the case. and this year, he has crossroads america and they raised and spent millions of other people's money for this election.
i don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing. >> those are the republican party campaign arms for the house and senate. he is running things. rove is a problem. heck rove managed to make donald trump angry. rove wanted to be not to be wrong so badly. he wanted to have one big race so badly on election night he became borderline incoherent on fox news saying what was happening was not happening. i realize he is a big republican figure but at what point in his